General Industries, Inc. v. Eriksson

467 P.2d 321, 2 Wash. App. 228, 1970 Wash. App. LEXIS 1115
CourtCourt of Appeals of Washington
DecidedMarch 30, 1970
Docket142-41178-1
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 467 P.2d 321 (General Industries, Inc. v. Eriksson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
General Industries, Inc. v. Eriksson, 467 P.2d 321, 2 Wash. App. 228, 1970 Wash. App. LEXIS 1115 (Wash. Ct. App. 1970).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The court entered findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment granting the relief prayed for by respondent building contractor in a suit for money due under a contract with appellants to construct a tavern. The court held appellants failed to meet their burden of proof and dismissed their counterclaim for loss of income due to an alleged failure to complete the building on time and for the cost of correction and completion of certain items alleged to have been within the contract.

As appellant concedes, the issues raised on appeal are with one exception factual. We have reviewed the record and there is substantial evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom, as respondent has pointed out in his brief, to sustain the findings of the trial court. This being so, we cannot disturb the findings of the trial court except as provided by RCW 4.44.060. Thorndike v. Hesperian Orchards, Inc., 54 Wn.2d 570, 343 P.2d 183 (1959). The factual findings the court enters are only those it determines have been established by the evidence. The court is not required to enter negative findings or findings that a certain fact has not been established. Miller v. Geranios, 54 Wn.2d 917, 338 P.2d 763 (1959).

At the close of the trial after respondent finished his rebuttal testimony, appellant moved, for the first time, for an accounting on an item for which credits were allowed in the written contract. The court denied this request inasmuch as respondent’s principal witness had left the city at the close of the rebuttal testimony. He was not in the city at the time the motion was made and could not have been made available then to refute testimony presented on the issue. The delay in making a request for an accounting was occasioned by the failure of appellants to inform its counsel of the questions involved until the end of the trial.

A motion to amend a pleading after pleadings have closed is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial *230 court. Sanwick v. Puget Sound Title Ins. Co., 70 Wn.2d 438, 423 P.2d 624 (1967); CR 15(a). There is no abuse of discretion shown here.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Estate Of James W. Jordan
Court of Appeals of Washington, 2020
Eagle View Technologies, Inc. v. Yuri Pikover And 37 Tech. Ventures, Llc
365 P.3d 1264 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2015)
Bncc, Inc. v. Access Electric Supply, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Washington, 2013
State v. Dowling
656 P.2d 497 (Washington Supreme Court, 1983)
Hering v. Department of Motor Vehicles
534 P.2d 143 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1975)
State v. Bastinelli
506 P.2d 854 (Washington Supreme Court, 1973)
Kiecker v. Pacific Indemnity Co.
491 P.2d 244 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1971)
Fuller v. Angel
485 P.2d 620 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1971)
King v. King
481 P.2d 457 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1971)
Stark v. Allis-Chalmers
467 P.2d 854 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
467 P.2d 321, 2 Wash. App. 228, 1970 Wash. App. LEXIS 1115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/general-industries-inc-v-eriksson-washctapp-1970.